“If there’s one thing you want to do when accusations are flying about an attempted cover up and a disinterested, collusive media, it’s holding an off-the-record briefing. [snip]

Were they discussing troop movements or something? What reason could there be to go off the record, and why would the press agree to it? If there’s classified material involved, just redact the bits that can’t be publicized. Or maybe I have this wrong; maybe the reason Carney wanted to huddle is because Ron Fournier was onto something this morning in sensing that the White House is trying to point a finger at Hillary and the State Department for redacting the first draft of the CIA’s talking points. For obvious reasons, if Carney wants to steer them in that direction, he wouldn’t want to do it on the record. Then again, there’s no reason to task the White House press secretary with that; if Team O wants to push Hillary under the bus, they’ll do it the old-fashioned way, through anonymous leaks. So again, why is this briefing off the record?

Why this briefing? Because old fashioned anonymous leaks just won’t do. Just wait until the subpoenas start flying. Can we please get a small select committee of former prosecutors with subpoena power and funding? Please!

“Throw Hillary under the bus? In a statement to ABC, Carney notably insulates the West Wing and not the State Department by saying “the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and nonsubstantive.” And, with no apparent regard to hypocrisy, Carney criticized the GOP for attempting to “politicize the talking points.”

“Vice President Joe Biden is already staking out his own territory apart from the Obama White House, ground he will need to occupy if he wants to have a chance to be the Democratic nominee for president in 2016.

Biden, a longtime liberal firebrand, will almost certainly seek to portray himself as the candidate of the Party’s left-wing base, stigmatizing Hillary as the cautious standard bearer for husband Bill’s New Democrat moderates. [snip]

A couple of days ago, Biden told a local South Carolina Sierra Club activist that he opposes the Keystone pipeline, lamenting that he is in the “minority” at the White House.

And in a move that set him clearly apart from Obama and which could help cast him as a no-nonsense battler of terrorists, Biden went to Boston and declared that, yes, the marathon bombers were Islamist extremists and that we are indeed confronting a “doctrine of hate and oppression.”

Looks like there will be two political campaigns within the White House: One designed to take back the House in 2014, and another to elect Biden president in 2016.“

Joe Biden is not acting independently of Barack Obama. Joe Biden is being advised by the Obama thugs that smeared Hillary in 2007/2008 and has a ‘get out of jail free’ card from Obama’s thugs. Bumblin’ Joe Biden is preparing to run against Hillary as the Obama acolyte, heir apparent, and the chief warrior of the DailyKooks left. Biden will battle others (such as Martin O’Malley) for that title.

The DailyKooks left once despised Biden as the bankers best friend in the senate. But if Biden bows to the DailyKooks left they will support him if only to get rid of the bane of their existence – Hillary Clinton.

Well now it is clearly in the strategic and tactical interests of Republicans/conservatives to attack Hillary Clinton, pause for a few minutes, attack Obama, then attack Hillary Clinton, then back to Barack. HillaryLand better wake up to this new dynamic.

HillaryLand better do as we suggested and begin to separate Hillary Clinton from Barack Obama. Hear that Hillary Clinton supporters in the grassroots?

Big Media pretended to be on board the Hillary Clinton 2016 train but that support was contingent on Hillary Clinton being the third Barack Obama term. If Hillary Clinton 2016 was to be the vassal to Lord and liege Barack Obama then Big Media was all on board. But this week the Hillary hate in Big Media came out like acne on a dirty teen.

The dependably foolish Joe Scarborough muses “This has the DNA of a Clinton scandal more than it does an Obama scandal, does it not?” Somehow Joe does not realize that it was Barack Obama that was up for election in 2012 and needed to suppress the truth.

But the longer I listened, the more I realized that the moment evoked by both the questions and the answers was quite a specific one — the 90s, by name. Once again, Republicans smelled blood. But also once again, we were hearing about a give-no-quarter response from Hillary Clinton that seemed to have created more problems than it solved.

In the 90s, it was First Lady Hillary Clinton, with the help of deputy White House counsel Cheryl Mills, who so steadfastly refused to cooperate with investigators looking into the legality of an Arkansas land deal that she looked like she was hiding much more than she actually was.

Even many Democrats came to feel that if only the first lady had been more forthcoming, there would never have been an independent prosecutor in the person of Ken Starr. But, both her legal training and her personal impulse was to give no grain of sand without bloodshed. And it was in that mode — aggrieved, certain, and right in one sense but mistaken in another — that she uttered her infamous remark about the “vast right-wing conspiracy“ against her husband. [snip]

Wednesday’s hearing, however, raised questions about whether she really has learned the management lessons of her time in the White House. Perfectly legitimate issues still on the table include why her State Department didn’t address known security problems despite repeated requests, and why a respected diplomat seems to have been made to pay for asking unwelcome questions. [snip]

Once again, we heard about how ferocious Cheryl Mills was in getting out ahead of any trouble for her boss, angrily phoning Hicks about why he’d met with a Congressional Republican without a State Department lawyer present. [snip]

I could actually see this helping Clinton politically if her critics, who in the past have overplayed their hand, don’t get a grip. But there is clear political danger here for her, too, which this week’s testimony suggests was evident to Team Hillary from Day One.

Her political adversaries are indeed ready to spring back into action as if the years they spent comparing her favorably to Barack Obama never happened. [snip]

And if there’s nothing to hide, then even some belated transparency would help Clinton put the less savory aspects of the 90s behind her for good.

As we repeatedly write, we think Hillary will come out smelling like a rose once the entire story is told. If not, we still want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth – under oath.

But Republicans, conservatives, have to be careful as Henneberger writes. Already they are as confident as they usually get before Hillary or Bill El Kabongs them.

Because of a convergence of interests a temporary alliance exists. The temporary alliance between Republicans, conservatives, DailyKooks, Bumblin’ Joe Biden, O’Malley, Barack, and the White House henchmen will have a longer, more profitable, lifespan as long as HillaryLand holds its fire against Barack Obama and his Chicago gang.
For Republicans/conservatives it’s popcorn time. Open warfare erupting between the Clintons and the Obamas, not to mention Bumblin’ Joe regularly shooting himself in the feet, will bring many afternoons of delight. The dangers to Republicans are that certain of their members overplay their hands, again, and El Kabong appears – turning sure profit into loss. A select committee of smart former prosecutors to investigate Benghazi and assorted lies, given appropriate funding and subpoena power, would solve this problem before it sure as shootin’ happens.

Imagine a bushel load of subpoenas to White House personnel who then have to lawyer up and become suspicious of other White House thugs. Soon Tarentino will be able to film a remake of the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre in the West Wing. Call it Benghazi Unchained.

I would like to see Judge Posner appointed as Special Counsel to sort this thing out. I completely trust his intellect, his thoroughness and his ability to unravel a complex situation like this and give us the truth, the whole truth etc.

“If there’s one thing you want to do when accusations are flying about an attempted cover up and a disinterested, collusive media, it’s holding an off-the-record briefing. [snip]

Were they discussing troop movements or something? What reason could there be to go off the record, and why would the press agree to it? If there’s classified material involved, just redact the bits that can’t be publicized. Or maybe I have this wrong; maybe the reason Carney wanted to huddle is because Ron Fournier was onto something this morning in sensing that the White House is trying to point a finger at Hillary and the State Department for redacting the first draft of the CIA’s talking points. For obvious reasons, if Carney wants to steer them in that direction, he wouldn’t want to do it on the record. Then again, there’s no reason to task the White House press secretary with that; if Team O wants to push Hillary under the bus, they’ll do it the old-fashioned way, through anonymous leaks. So again, why is this briefing off the record?

Why this briefing? Because old fashioned anonymous leaks just won’t do. Just wait until the subpoenas start flying. Can we please get a small select committee of former prosecutors with subpoena power and funding? Please!

In the White House’s latest efforts at transparency, the administration announced to reporters that it would brief reporters on the latest shocking developments about the Benghazi situation … behind closed doors. Politico reports that the meeting started at approximately 12:45 PM ET, and that it moved the normal press briefing to 1:45 PM ET. Jay Carney, White House press secretary, did not comment on whether the meeting took place. [snip]

No doubt this “off-the-record” meeting was designed to get all the president’s horses and all the president’s men to put the Benghazi humpty dumpty together again.

UPDATE: Reporters not invited to the off-the-record briefing are reportedly incredibly unhappy about it:

The WH briefing is now scheduled for 3:15. That should be fun for Carney the Clown.

I am not keen on using a prosecutor, or worse yet a bevy of prosecutors to try and sort this thing out in a fair and impartial way. Prosecutors are political animals, and the goal would be to take politics out of this entirely, or as much as possible. I have met some fine prosecutors in my time, people I do admire, but I do not think that even a good one is right for the role. The reason we have judges, theoretically speaking, is to be impartial and to make the hard calls when hard calls are needed. The problem is, too many of them lack the qualities of mind, brilliance and perseverance to undertake a project such as this. Our Chief Justice, for example, is not the kind of judge this billet would require. He is a weak man, no great intellect and a buck passer. The Obama appointees to the court are of the same ilk. But Posner is a horse of a different color as were Judges Friendly, Learned Hand, Oliver Wendell Holmes and a handful of others. If we want the truth and to get the politics out of it, he would be my choice.

In the White House’s latest efforts at transparency, the administration announced to reporters that it would brief reporters on the latest shocking developments about the Benghazi situation … behind closed doors. Politico reports that the meeting started at approximately 12:45 PM ET, and that it moved the normal press briefing to 1:45 PM ET. Jay Carney, White House press secretary, did not comment on whether the meeting took place. [snip]

No doubt this “off-the-record” meeting was designed to get all the president’s horses and all the president’s men to put the Benghazi humpty dumpty together again.

UPDATE: Reporters not invited to the off-the-record briefing are reportedly incredibly unhappy about it:
————————————————-
Yes, indeed. Obama is very very very transparent:

“The most effectual engines for [pacifying a nation] are the public papers… [A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper.” –Thomas Jefferson to G. K. van Hogendorp, Oct. 13, 1785. (*) ME 5:181, Papers 8:632

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack. . .

The big media cabal convenes with clown carney in a small office in the bowels of the White House. Ly’n Brian leads them in a short prayer to their god Barack, Boy George says amen, and now the fun begins. Rat boy Todd raises his hand like a school child, and headmaster clown carney calls on his. Whereupon Todd does one of his famous compound question: Jay since I am only allowed one question, do you feel you are losing altitude over this Benghazi debacle, and do you realize the spot you have put us after the hearing yesterday and what can we do to save your bacon–just name it anything, and I heard that Obama played golf during the hearings yesterday and broke 90 is there anything else he expects to achieve during his second term. Ly’n Brian looks displeased with his colleague, and assures Jay that the next time he sees Obama, he will kiss his ass in public, so there is no doubt where he stands. Boy George says never mind that stupid question my competitor just asked you. I want you to know that my organization will lie through our teeth to protect Obama and you need not worry about that. If you have any doubt about that, just remember what we have been doing since 2007. Whereupon Griffin at msnbc assures Carney that they are insiders and will continue to carry Obama’s water. The president of CBS steps forward and announces that he will do whatever is necessary to protect Obama and his own brother Rhoades, and will use the full powers of his network to make that happen, but it would be nice to have a few talking points to respond to the floodtide of information coming in from FOX, other sources, and the horses of the Aegean stable. Carney promises to give them one more email with White House talking points per day, to supplement the 12 they are already receiving from ther White House. Carney gets ready to leave, and the big media cabal rises from its prayer rugs.

But with the release of 12 versions of the talking points Friday by ABC News, perhaps there is an alternative explanation: This basically was a bureaucratic knife fight, pitting the State Department against the CIA. [snip]

First, some important context: Although the ambassador was killed, the Benghazi “consulate” was not a consulate at all but basically a secret CIA operation which included an effort to round up shoulder-launched missiles. In fact, only seven of the 30 Americans evacuated from Benghazi had any connection to the State Department; the rest were affiliated with the CIA.

The official reports, such as the one from the Accountability Review Board and the Senate Homeland Security Committee report, essentially dance around that uncomfortable fact:

“In December 2011, the Under Secretary for Management approved a one-year continuation of the U.S. Special Mission in Benghazi, which was never a consulate and never formally notified to the Libyan government.” (ARB)

“The attacks in Benghazi occurred at two different locations: a Department of State ‘Temporary Mission Facility’ and an Annex facility (‘Annex’) approximately a mile away used by another agency of the United States Government.” (Senate report)

So, from the State Department perspective, this was an attack on a CIA operation, perhaps by the very people who the CIA was battling, and the ambassador tragically was in the wrong place at the wrong time. But, for obvious reasons, the administration could not publicly admit that Benghazi was mostly a secret CIA effort.

The talking points were originally developed by the CIA at the request of a member of the House Intelligence Committee. Interestingly, all of the versions are consistent on one point — that the attacks were “spontaneously inspired by protests at the U.S. embassy in Cairo,” a fact later deemed to be incorrect.

The talking points through Friday begin to become rather fulsome, at which point there is sharp push-back from the State Department. Let’s look at the version as of 5:09 p.m. on Sept 14, a Friday, and see the red flags for State:

■The talking points refer to a “direct assault against the U.S. consulate.”

■ The CIA says it “warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of the Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into the Embassy”

■ The CIA says it “has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists in Benghazi and eastern Libya.” It cites “at least five other attacks” against foreign interests and says it “cannot rule out the individuals had previously surveilled [sic] the U.S. facilities.”

The clear implication is that State screwed up, even though internally, it was known that this was a CIA operation. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland especially objects to the reference to previous warnings, saying it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings.”

Moreover, Nuland had been constrained from saying much about the attack at her daily press briefings, so she was unsure why the agency would suddenly give so much information to members of Congress.

After the CIA makes minor changes, such as deleting a reference to the militant group Ansar al-Sharia, Nuland responds, “These changes don’t resolve all of my issues or those of my buildings leadership.” At that point, a White House official weighs in and writes in an e-mail:

“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”

The final version of the talking points shows what happened: Just about everything was cut, leaving virtually nothing. The reference to “consulate” was also deleted, replaced by “diplomatic post.”

From a bureaucratic perspective, it may have seemed like the best possible solution at the time. From a political perspective, it turned out to be a disaster.

For reasons unknown, the White House sent U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on five Sunday shows with those talking points — and the rest is history. The talking points were so weak that Rice immediately raised suspicions that the administration was hiding something important. (She instantly earned Pinocchios.) She also repeatedly referenced the supposed impact of an anti-Islam video, which was never a part of the talking points.

Further investigation may make the bureaucratic explanation moot. But, in Washington, one should never underestimate the importance of internal conflict between agencies.

We’ve been writing Hillary will come out smelling like a rose when the full story comes out. We’ve been writing this was a CIA operation and that Hillary is constrained from revealing information that may be secret and that the White House wants Hillary to keep her mouth shut.

It was Barack Obama who wanted to keep the lid on this story before the election. It is Barack Obama who refuses to come clean.

Wait until Hillary opens her mouth either via leaks or an all out assault.

Sorry, no link but looks like Stephen Hayes (Weekly Standard) is tweeting that FOX’s James Rosen is tweeting that more whistleblowers are considering coming forward which may include some CIA officials.

The U.S. military has alerted two elite military units in Europe to be on standby if needed to respond to a deteriorating security situation in Tripoli, Fox News has learned.

In recent days both the U.S. embassy and British embassy in Libya have removed non-essential staff from their embassies.

A specialized Marine unit based in Moron, Spain, is in the process of being repositioned closer to Libya; and in Stuttgart, Germany, a special operations force assigned to AFRICOM has been placed on heightened alert.

MoonOnPluto, whistle blowers from CIA will eventually take away all rationale for keeping it secret that Benghazi was a CIA operation. Hillary will be able to speak freely. However, the shoulder fired rockets to be sent to Turkey so that Turkey could forward them onto Syria is the Iran/Contra angle that Obama does not want exposed.

As we recall Reagan did Iran/Contra because it was illegal to send the weapons. We have to research if the same law pertains to middle east or was that law about Latin America or maybe just Nicaragua.

i have a feeling one is going to have to throw the other under the bus, i hope Hillary has her ducks in a row because this is about to get nasty and about saving dickheads Presidency.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

“We’ve been writing Hillary will come out smelling like a rose when the full story comes out. We’ve been writing this was a CIA operation and that Hillary is constrained from revealing information that may be secret and that the White House wants Hillary to keep her mouth shut.”
********
At the pointy end of the spear for a rational for cover-up is that the possible Qatar/UAE money for Libyan arms transported via Turkey to Al Nusra front, Syria, was “off the books”. If this wasn’t a clandestine CIA op but rather run out of the WH without a “Presidential Finding”, then it is a criminal act by the President.

“As we recall Reagan did Iran/Contra because it was illegal to send the weapons. We have to research if the same law pertains to middle east or was that law about Latin America or maybe just Nicaragua.”
*******

The Boland Amendment was the name given to three U.S. legislative amendments between 1982 and 1984, all aimed at limiting U.S. government assistance to the Contras in Nicaragua. The first Boland Amendment was to the House Appropriations Bill of 1982, which was attached as a rider to the Defense Appropriations Act of 1983, named for the Massachusetts Democrat, Representative Edward Patrick Boland, who authored it. The House of Representatives passed the Defense Appropriations Act 411-0 on December 8, 1982 and it was signed by President Ronald Reagan on December 21, 1982.[1] The amendment outlawed U.S. assistance to the Contras for the purpose of overthrowing the Nicaraguan government, while allowing assistance for other purposes.[2]

Beyond restricting overt U.S. support of the Contras, the most significant effect of the Boland Amendment was the Iran-Contra Affair, during which the Reagan Administration illegally circumvented the Amendment in order to continue supplying arms to the Contras, behind the back of Congress.”

Remember the video guy – AKA the scapegoat? Is he the first person jailed for violating Islamic law? He’s still in jail if anyone is wondering.
____________________

Jailed for blasphemy ­ in America
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula deserves a place in American history. He is the first person in this country jailed for violating Islamic anti-blasphemy laws. You won’t find that anywhere in the charges against him, of course. As a practical matter, though, everyone knows that Nakoula wouldn’t be in jail if he hadn’t produced a video crudely lampooning the prophet Muhammad.

After the attack on US facilities in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others, the Obama administration claimed the terrorist assault had been the outgrowth of a demonstration against the video. In a speech at the United Nations, the president declared ­ no doubt with Nakoula in mind ­ “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.”

With some respect to old Joe running against Hillary in ’16, it is something that wouldn’t be so bad.

Joe can promise the Kooks Hope ‘n Change 2.0
Joe can represent for the whack jobs on the far left.

If Hillary decides to run, having her buddy Joe running against her as a few perks…
– Joe is a gaff machine that embarrasses himself far beyond what anyone else could ever do. For example, Joe giving a speech, tells a man in the audience to stand up and be honored, turns out the guy is in a wheelchair.

– Joe likes and respects Hillary, so their debating will be more like a debate between two adults.

Biden and Boehner are talking. (Never a good thing). Obama floats the idea that if the Republicans drop the Benghazi investigation, then he (Obama) will not run again. Boehner’s response? That is too good a deal for me to pass up.

Pickering is not simply a fixer. He is an Iran sympathizer with ties to Soros. This is from David Horowitz’s site, who understands the machinations of Soros and his shadow government better than anyone.

This investigation will die unless more logs are thrown on the fire. That means either an independent prosecutor or a joint congressional committee with full supoena powers. There are reportedly four CIA witnesses who have material evidence here as well, and one of them has lawyered up. They are reluctant to come forward volutarily, but would be glad to do so if subopenaed. If they are supoenaed then their bosses cannot accuse them of betrayal. If they are not subpeonaed they will be accused of that.

Fox News’ Catherine Hedridge (sp) says General Petraeus of CIA knew video was irrelevant but three days later told congress in testimony that Benghazi was because of the video. CH then implies that Petraeus knew he was being investigated and that is why he lied.

I’m not going to repost the entire transcript, but here are some relevant passages. Keep in mind, these are Hillary’s own words, spoken on September 12, 2012.

[quote]Yesterday, our U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi, Libya was attacked. Heavily armed militants assaulted the compound and set fire to our buildings. American and Libyan security personnel battled the attackers together. Four Americans were killed.[/quote]

I suppose one could argue that Hillary should have used the word “terrorism.” But she described what happened using strong language. She doesn’t make it sound like an accident or a demonstration that got out of hand. She simply told us what happened. Again, while she did not use the word “terrorism” on this particular occasion, what she did here is akin to describing a brown-feathered water fowl with webbed feet and a beak without using the word “duck.” Anybody listening to her words would know what she meant.

Later on in her speech, Hillary said this:

[quote]But we must be clear-eyed, even in our grief. This was an attack by a small and savage group – not the people or Government of Libya. Everywhere Chris and his team went in Libya, in a country scarred by war and tyranny, they were hailed as friends and partners. And when the attack came yesterday, Libyans stood and fought to defend our post. Some were wounded. Libyans carried Chris’ body to the hospital, and they helped rescue and lead other Americans to safety. And last night, when I spoke with the President of Libya, he strongly condemned the violence and pledged every effort to protect our people and pursue those responsible.[/quote]

No T-word, but as is the casse in the previous passage I quoted, Hillary’s description makes it pretty clear what kinds of people these attackers were. A small and savage group. Not the people or government of Libya. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

But what about the YouTube video? If you’ve been watching Fox News lately, you “know” that Hillary “blamed it on the video.” But did she? Let’s read this passage and find out…

[quote]We are working to determine the precise motivations and methods of those who carried out this assault. Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior, along with the protest that took place at our Embassy in Cairo yesterday, as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear – there is no justification for this, none. Violence like this is no way to honor religion or faith.[/quote]

Very careful language here. Note how Hillary does not mention a protest in Benghazi, only in Cairo. “Some have sought to justify…” I would be interested in knowing who are the “some” she was referring to.

The entire transscript can be found at the link. Still4Hill also has video footage and transcripts of other speeches Hillary made in the aftermath of the Benghazi attacks. I recommend reading her words carefully and then comparing what she ACTUALLY SAID to the accusations the idiot Republicans and their wingnut media shills are making against her.

We have to be on guard. For many years, a lot of us have maintained a “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” attitude toward the Republicans. I don’t think this is helpful now. The right wing is after Hillary, not Obama. Obama can’t be trusted, but neither can we trust the Republicans. If they were given a choice between impeaching Obama or taking Hillary out of the 2016 race, they would choose the latter.

Jen The Michigander, thanks for that comment quoting StillForHill. Some people are sure they know exactly what happened and are making final judgements and fatuous proclamations about who did what to whom and how. People who should know better are declaring Hillary an evil force even though they don’t know what the hell they are talking about because all the evidence is not in yet. Those making final judgements as if they are Harry Potter in the pensieve should remember “evil” Severus Snape and Lily’s eyes.

We have an operating theory of what happened (this comment HERE is a clue to what our theory is and if we are right in how we are approaching this mystery novel Hillary’s actions are entirely justifiable – something those who have made up their minds should consider) but we are more than happy to hear all the evidence. Indeed we are demanding more hearings of a higher quality and focus and lots of subpoenas and investigation. We know from experience Obama is rotten to the core but for Hillary we are willing for now to reserve final judgment. There’s plenty of time before 2014 and even more before 2016 to let this story play out fully.

Here’s a story for you from Jonathan Karl who reported on the talking points revisions on ABC:

Today’s blockbuster ABC News report about White House and State Dept. involvement in revising the CIA’s Benghazi talking points has provided Republicans with new talking points in their effort to discredit former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton. But Jonathan Karl, the ABC News White House correspondent who landed the scoop, says not so fast.

The emails obtained by Karl show that State Dept. spokesman Victoria Nuland raised objections to a paragraph in the talking points mentioning threats from extremists linked to Al Qaeda. When a round of revisions did not satisfy her concerns, she wrote back: “These changes don’t resolve all of my issues or those of my building’s leadership.”

In that reference to the “building’s leadership,” some see a reference to Sec. Clinton. But Karl says that to date, no such evidence exists.

“There’s no evidence that I’ve seen that Hillary Clinton was aware of what was going on, or in any way tried to direct what was in these talking points,” Karl told POLITICO on Friday morning. “But that sentence is certainly open to interpretation, and you can guarantee it is going to seized on by Republicans for a long time, because ultimately the leadership of that building is Hillary Clinton.” [snip]

The Sunday shows will be almost entirely dedicated to the issue: ABC’s “This Week,” will feature interviews with Sens. John McCain and Jack Reed, and Gen. James Cartwright, retired Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will join the roundtable. CBS’s “Face The Nation” will feature interviews with former Sec. of Defense Robert Gates and Sens. Dick Durbin and Kelly Ayotte. NBC’s “Meet The Press” will have exclusive interviews with House Oversight Committee Chair Darrell Issa and Senate Intelligence Chair Dianne Feinstein.

But where the story goes after Sunday is anyone’s guess.

“I have no idea how long this story will go on, but what is clear after this week is that there are still legitimate questions to be asked, and there’s also going to be a political story regarding Hillary Clinton,” Karl told POLITICO. “The story clearly has legs — for how long, I just don’t know.”

Here is the actual ABC report about the 12 versions. Note the blame on the State Department. We knew Hillary should have run a far away from Obama as possible. I hope more whistle-blowers come forward for her sake. It is now Operation Smear Hillary.

The ultimate test is not what is true, but what the public as a whole will come to believe at the conclusion of the case. From a legal standpoint, the cover-up which potentially affected the election is a big issue, but mainly to lawyers and republicans. But it cuts little ice with the public. The failure to take proactive steps to protect the facility matters to state department personnel around the world, but it does not register with the American People. Truth to tell, we rarely enter into a war with the forces we need, so that is a non-starter. But assuming it is an issue in this case, it will weigh against Hillary IF she can prove that she passed the ambassadors request for additional security up the chain of command, and am about 95% sure she did and can. From the standpoint of the military and the public at large, the biggest issue arising out of Benghazi was the failure to lift a finger to save our people. That crime can be placed feet of Obama, who failed to give the order because he was concerned about the political consequences if it failed, wanted to preserve the election narrative and wanted to hide the arms transfer which was occurring on his watch. The Bing West proves that he lied through his teeth when he claimed he gave the order. When this entire thing plays itself out, that is where ball will come to rest: the first black president, who put our people in harms way, and let them die when he could have rescued them. That should be enough fro the leftists to give him the place of honor on Mount Rushmore, but it will not sit well with the rest of us. Louis Niezer was a famous New York trial attorney who became an icon in the decades following world war II. He won a big slander case on behalf of his client, Quentin Reyonolds. He spoke about that in his auto biography My Life In Court. He said when you get mud on your clothes, it is best to let it dry and then you can easily sweep it off, but if you try to do it while it is still wet it will smear and ruin the apparel. The same goes for Hillary and Benghazi. And remember she is still the most popular politician in the country. The biggest problem she has was her appearance before congress which shut down the republicans and delighted big media. It was a tactical success, but strategically, it was a self inflicted wound, never to be repeated, hopefully.

Obama will do anything to deride a potential Hillary 2016 run. No matter what we think, this issue will stick.
——————–
Right now, I think he has a more immediate issue to worry about than 2016. I think he has got his ass in a sling. I think we can prove that he could have saved our people, failed to do so, and lied that he gave the order. The key to this thing, however, is getting the four CIA officials to testify. Issa needs to stay ahead of Kwalija the wooden Indian, who is asking for Benjamin, Gibson, Mullen and Pickering to testify. I laughed when one of the FOX pundits interpreted that as proof that the democrats want to get to the bottom of this. Yes, they want to get to the bottom of this, they want root canal surgery without novacane and they want to be on a burning ship at midnight. Trust me, all Kwalija wants is rebuttal evidence. They do not want justice. Does a cat bark?

From the standpoint of the military and the public at large, the biggest issue arising out of Benghazi was the failure to lift a finger to save our people. That crime can be placed feet of Obama, who failed to give the order because he was concerned about the political consequences if it failed, wanted to preserve the election narrative and wanted to hide the arms transfer which was occurring on his watch. The Bing West proves that he lied through his teeth when he claimed he gave the order.
———————
If you think I am kidding when I say this is the trump card in this, just remember that most people today have seen movies by Clint Eastwood, Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwartznegger, Bruce Willis etc. which involve hostage rescues, vengeance and retribution. A script where the hero learns Americans are being killed, but the so called leader does nothing to save them, but simply goes to bed would be box office poison. Damaging to the legacy too.

This altering of the talking points is far less significant that the dereliction of duty by Obama.

So fuck ABC New, those maggots at BBC, and the rest of them who want to spare Obama and point the finger at Hillary.

Those people have zero jurnolistic credibility.

The issue here is delection of duty by Obama. Period.

And ABC will not touch it.

This bullshit about heads will roll for altering the talking points.

How about this one: heads will role because Obama could have saved American lives and instead he went to bed.

How about that one ABC–you maggots?

Or how about that obscure law the Boland Amendment which you tried to hang Reagan with ABC? Are you equally willing to push that point in this instance to show that Obama is a lawbreaker, a hypocrite etc. Of course not.

You, ABC, and your counterparts are not investigating. You are part of the conspiracy to protect Obama. Any and all heads will role, except his, even though he is the most guilty member of the cabal. But then again, he is you and you are him.

Humor me ABC and consider what a jurnolist would be investigating in this instance.

And never ever forget this: it was Obama and no one else, who had the LAST CLEAR CHANCE to save our people and instead of giving the order, he went to bed.
—————————————————-

First, Gregory Hicks is the only person so far to speak in public about these events who was actually in Libya at the time. Hicks was the Deputy Chief of Mission in Tripoli, Libya — that is, Deputy Ambassador. As soon as Ambassador Chris Stevens died, Hicks became Acting Ambassador to Libya.

However, we still have not heard from anyone who was in Benghazi during these events. The 30-40 survivors are still in mysterious seclusion. Their eyewitness accounts will offer future revelations.

Second, Hicks dropped a bombshell: The USA never asked Libya for permission to fly through Libyan airspace to defend the consulate in Benghazi. The Obama administration never intended to come to the defense of Ambassador Stevens. Hicks — fluent in Arabic and familiar with Libya’s government — testified that Libya would have granted permission.

Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) keeps reminding us that no one knew how long the attack would last. In fact, it was 3 days later when the embassy staff in Tripoli returned from evacuation to an annex. So at the time, U.S. F-16’s might still have been needed long past the first 7 hours. Hicks confirmed that he thought the situation was still dangerous for 3 days. Yet the U.S.A. never requested Libyan permission in case U.S. aircraft might be needed.

Third, Hicks asked the U.S. military to help immediately at the start of the 7-hour siege of the Benghazi consulate. F-16 fighter jets could have reached Benghazi in 2 to 3 hours from the 31st Fighter Wing in Aviano, Italy, Hicks testified. The embassy’s defense attaché was told that F-16’s could be over the Consulate in 2-3 hours.

That means the ambassador and 3 other Americans did not need to die. Remember that 2 died near the middle and 2 near the end of the 7-hour ordeal. Jets could have arrived prior to the last 4-5 hours of the assault. Hicks testified that Libyans were deeply afraid of U.S. airpower after months of bombing during the 2011 revolution. Just knowing that U.S. jets were in the area would have sent the consulate attackers fleeing, Hicks testified.

This altering of the talking points is lawyer crap. It had nothing to do with Romney losing the election. What is paramount here is the failure by Obama to give the order which would have saved American lives. That was pure evil.

Frustrating to watch these left wing extremist rags try to pass off plants like David Brooks (NYT) and Jennifer Rubin (WashPo) as “conservatives”. These people make a market in attacking conservatives. They are the newspaper equivalent of the RINO disease, which is a form of dementia, that afflicts “conservatives” like McCain, Graham, and Rubio.

Kind of funny in a pathetic way: Fox anchor patronizes IRS before beginning this interview. Published on May 11, 2013
AFP-Pennsylvania’s state director goes on Fox News Channel to discuss how her tea party group was targeted by the IRS when they began back in 2009.

Social scientists call this the mobilization of bias. Marxists refer to it as the establishment of cultural hegemony. More plainly, it is a common trick pulled by Team Obama any time they are in a jam: Define your opponents in such a way that their views are not really taken seriously.

Of course, politicians are always trying this stunt. It makes sense to convince fickle swing voters that the opposition is just no good. Yet Obama’s attempts to mobilize bias stand out, for two reasons.

First is the total commitment to the strategy. Listen to any Obama flack long enough (usually just a matter of minutes), and he or she will reference how extreme the opposition is. Last month when discussing entitlements, Jay Carney said the president was looking for the “common-sense caucus.” And, of course, the media echo this: Last week Politico repeated the “common-sense caucus” phrase to report on the president’s golf game with Republican senators. The result is to paint conservatives as so far outside the mainstream that there is nothing that this president can do with them.

Second is the hypocrisy behind the tactic. This, after all, is the president elected because he promised to bring fundamental change to Washington. In The Audacity of Hope, Obama goes on at length about respecting the views of those who disagree with him, especially on abortion. Instead, we have sustained partisan warfare and a first-ever presidential address to Planned Parenthood, in which the president proclaims that the people whose views he once professed to respect are trying to return America to the 1950s.

The passionately pro-Israel organization Z STREET filed a lawsuit against the IRS, claiming it had been told by an IRS agent that because the organization was “connected to Israel,” its application for tax-exempt status would receive additional scrutiny. This admission was made in response to a query about the lengthy reveiw of Z STREET’s tax exempt status application.

In addition, the IRS agent told a Z STREET representative that the applications of some of those Israel-related organizations have been assigned to “a special unit in the D.C. office to determine whether the organization’s activities contradict the Administration’s public policies.”

… And at least one purely religious Jewish organization, one not focused on Israel, was the recipient of bizarre and highly inappropriate questions about Israel. Those questions also came from the same non-profit division of the IRS at issue for inappropriately targeting politically conservative groups. The IRS required that Jewish organization to state “whether [it] supports the existence of the land of Israel,” and also demanded the organization “[d]escribe [its] religious belief system toward the land of Israel.”

Conservatives I hang out with on Twitter are saying BBC has apologized for its reporting of Benghazi. I can’t tell. Maybe you would like the link and a taste.
From BBC’s Mark Mardell
“…However you read the motives, the state department and apparently the White House did get the CIA to change its story.
This is now very serious, and I suspect heads will roll. The White House will be on the defensive for a while.”http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22483768#TWEET751125

” What is paramount here is the failure by Obama to give the order which would have saved American lives.”
*****
Which again raises the question of Who or What is the command and control for this administration? Obama is indifferent to governing and policy, is lazy and stupid, so who is in charge of running the show. Jarrett is a constant but seems to be the politics/money/enforcer not the policy person. Who is Obama’s Dick Cheney?

admin
May 11, 2013 at 11:16 am
—————
I wonder if the Jews will get a separate apology /sarcasm.

I did not realize that these IRS shenanigans delayed the groups’ abilities to collect money. A very big advantage for the Oh team. And every reason not to believe the decision to do so was made at a low level. TurboTimmy was still there.

I can see one huge breakthrough. This IRS admission has legitimized the TEA Party in a way that nothing else could have, and defined it as much more than just a handful of errant Republicans in the House!

Jay Cost has lost me entirely, since he blew the last election. The quote above was from him, and I think it has some merit, as far as it goes. Which isn’t very far, since he offers no prescription on how to cure the disease. As a matter of fact, the observation is worthless, and nobody is listening. One thing I have noticed is nothing seems to move the needle with the electorate–not Boston, not Benghazi, not nothing. I agree with Jefferson’s comment about how the corrupt press who serve the adminstration can and have to some extent become an instrument of the tyrant, but it goes even deeper than that I am afraid. The ultimate answer may be something as simple as something LJ told a bot on his blog: “You can’t fix stupid”. That truism can just as easily be applied to 52% of the electorate. Stupid. Highly credentialed in some cases, but when it comes down to the final test of intelligence—judgment, they are and always will be stupid.

holdthemaccountable
May 11, 2013 at 11:32 am
—————————
Clearly, this administration has an “Enemies List”. However, I am less sympathetic for the Jewish groups than I am for the Tea Parties, for one simple reason: they voted for Obama, both times, in unprecedented numbers.

Thank God, it is there now. The lying prick was you know who reading his talking points about what he learned about faith and politics working as a community organizer on the south side of Chicago. I assume he is referring to the temple of his mentor, race baiting Jerimah. If that is faith, then atheism had finally found a colorable argument.

Which again raises the question of Who or What is the command and control for this administration? Obama is indifferent to governing and policy, is lazy and stupid, so who is in charge of running the show. Jarrett is a constant but seems to be the politics/money/enforcer not the policy person. Who is Obama’s Dick Cheney?
—-
I don’t think Barry has a Cheney. I think he is manipulated and lets many others lead him around by his nose. He probably listens to a small group of rotating people, including Jarrett and Holder, then pops out a decision depending on what sounds good or helps HIM the most at that moment.

If any of Obama’s decisions were wise and well thought out, we wouldn’t be in the shit-stew we are in now and have been in for 5 years.

Nothing he has done, except give the ‘Go’ to the marines to get Bin Laden, nothing else has been a success for him or his party. Hillary held things together in the State Dept as best she could, swimming up stream against the swarm of blunders by the Obama gang.

Hillary’s job was to cover for the administration? I do not believe it. But at least Charles is going after THE RIGHT TARGET, NOT THE DECOY. And for that his is to be commended, and he is a damnsite smarter than his colleagues who are taking the bait.
—————————————-
Charles Krauthammer discussed today’s House Oversight Committee hearing on the Benghazi attack on tonight’s edition of Special Report, arguing that the key question left unasked and unanswered remains where the president was as events unfolded.

“Where was the commander-in-chief in all of this? The one man who could authorize and order troops to move above everybody and instantly is the commander-in-chief. Where was he for these hours when the fight was raging? Has anybody asked that? Has anybody answered that?”

Krauthammer also said that it’s clear now the State Department’s job in the wake of the attack was to cover for the administration, and that if any intimidation of officials occurred — and whistleblower Gregory Hicks alleges — that in itself is evidence of a cover-up on the part of the administration.

Evidently, Bambi has not learned it by now, but it takes more than a toothpaste grin, and the ability to read a telepromter, and to blame everyone but himself when things go wrong, if you hope to hold your place among adults, tyrants or al Quaeda. The comparison between him and Alred Neuman of Mad Magazine is not as far fetched as it sounds.

Shadowfax
May 11, 2013 at 3:18 pm
———————–
Yup. I also saw the two photos of ly’n brian. What is it about that joker that makes me want to puke? I guess its the fact that he is a corporate empty suit. I mean real empty. He parrots the party line to the point that you wonder if he has ever had an independent thought of his own. And he is about as authentic as the government unemployment figure.

I don’t think Barry has a Cheney. I think he is manipulated and lets many others lead him around by his nose. He probably listens to a small group of rotating people, including Jarrett and Holder, then pops out a decision depending on what sounds good or helps HIM the most at that moment.

Afternoon all! Great post admin and all posters. Shadow, your observation is COMPLETELY backed up by very sharp member of Holbrooke’s team before he passed. Vali Nasr was on his team working towards a positive outcome in Afghanistan. I watched his interview on Charlie Rose (who is a pathetic excuse for an Obama water-carrier). It’s not yet on Hulu so if I see it on Youtube or somewhere else, I’ll try and embed it here. Its a really great interview and completely worth 20-25 mins of your day. In it, and in his book, he identifies ALL the thing that Big Pinkers know to be true from the inside AND he names names. A very intelligent and commited individual that would SURELY be a big player in a Hillary administration.

His book basically says in the most elegant prose that this scholar and diplomat could bring to bear –

“Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.”

What struck me as significant in that interview was Charlie Rose trying to trap him into saying that this administration is doing everything possible in Syria and there are no other options. Mr. Nasr calmly laid out a cogent diplomatic strategy which INCLUDED a military component that would prove effective in abating the current atrocities in the country.

I’ll keep looking for the interview that Rose did. If anyone sees it before me, embed it here. It is worth the time to watch.

Answer: “The most effectual engines for [pacifying a nation] are the public papers… [A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper.” –Thomas Jefferson to G. K. van Hogendorp, Oct. 13, 1785. (*) ME 5:181, Papers 8:632

And then of course there are the maggot siblings who are the quintessential example of the Peter Principle.

1. CBS President Rhoades, brother of top Obama advisor, is ready to fire his best investigative reporter because she claims there were four (4) changes to the White House Talking Points which Rice spouted off on five different networks. He runs to Politico and complains to them that his employee is too aggressive.

2. A few days later, ABC, a competitor to CBS following the lead of the Weekly Standard discovers that there were (at least) twelve changes to the White House Taling Points which Rice spouted off on five networks. And Rhoades is left standing there with his pants down, and we are supposed to not notice?

3. What we have here is a clear conflict of interest. Rhoades has one duty to his audience and another duty to his brother to cover up. And he is making the wrong choice. It is not enough that he apologize to Sharyl. He needs to have his ass fired NOW. And she needs to high tail it over to FOX, where she can continue her excellent work on behalf of the American People.

Don ‘t worry. Langley types that were/are read into the program at the Annex are lawyering up for HPSCI appearances. The last time that happened was Iran-Contra, and the people that lawyered up included both officers who broke the law and those who declined the White House’s invitation to do so.

Yesterday, the IRS claimed that this only happened in one office in just 2012, and that only lower-level officials were involved. This report from the Associated Press refutes both of those claims — and adds yet another damning example to a growing list of misleading and false statements from the Obama administration.

Let’s go back to yesterday’s admission:

Lois G. Lerner, the IRS official who oversees tax-exempt groups, said the “absolutely inappropriate” actions by “front-line people” were not driven by partisan motives.

Rather, Lerner said, they were a misguided effort to come up with an efficient means of dealing with a flood of applications from organizations seeking ­tax-exempt status between 2010 and 2012.

Lerner’s statement gave the clear impression that the IRS only just learned about this, and that the actions were by rogue agents without enough supervisory control. The AP’s report on the upcoming Treasury IG’s report is that it will demonstrate that “senior officials” knew about this more than a year earlier — while Shulman was telling Congress that nothing of the sort was going on.

If the IG report substantiates this, then the questions will really start flying for the Obama administration. Why would senior IRS officials remain silent while their agents illegally targeted conservative non-profits with their knowledge? Was it because they were ordered to make it happen? Most government bureaucrats don’t go that far out of their way to innovate, especially in a legal landmine area such as this. And I’d suspect that “senior officials” wouldn’t climb out on that limb unless pressed on it, too.

WASHINGTON, May 10, 2013 Adult basic education and GED programs, with about 800,000 students taking GED tests each year, serve a segment of society that escaped government schools, including many homeschoolers. But the national propaganda effort called the Common Core Curriculum is spreading its tentacles to them.

admin
May 11, 2013 at 5:10 pm
—————–
You are 100% correct admin., and I must confess, I did not appreciate the significance of this story when it first broke. Just another assault on conservatives and the Constitution is what I told myself at the time. Par for the course with this demonic administration. But, then I realized that what you say is true, and this may turn out to be the tipping point. If you combine this story, i.e. that the IRS at the instigation of the Obama administration is targeting people because of their political beliefs with the story a few weeks ago that the IRS has adopted a policy of conducting warrantless searches, and the fact that the IRS will be the overseer of the implementation of Obamacare, then even the dimmest bulb has got to see where this train is heading.

Ly’n Brian is in the dumps. Seems his pet project has been cancelled. This was the one where Chelsea interviewed the Geico Gecko. Geico is a Buffett enterprise. Brian is reported to be “angry”. But he cannot show it because as with Nancy Lub Rack, the plastic surgery cannot handle wrinkles or facial expressions. We are told by Brian supporters that this was equally devastating to his audience. Someone asked how many there were and he answered just about 2–Brian himself being one of them. Someone else accused the first party to prove that there really was a second member of that phantom audience. The truth is the show was every bit as boring and as inconsequential as Ly’n Brian. But to his credit, he is following the familar path of other ham actors, when his career starts to fade, become a director or a producer. Like golf, you can play that game all your life.

A lot of those that should have known better could not wait to condemn Hillary Clinton. They still don’t understand that if our operating theory is on target Hillary had to acquiesce to national security cover stories. But it’s easier to jump to conclusions rather than wait for the full evidence to emerge for those that exchange one (Democratic Party) zealotry for another (attack the victim – Hillary – because the Dimocratic Party that betrayed her is corrupt).

Our operating theory story is gaining traction but we still want the full truth and await more evidence:

CIA officers at the Benghazi mission’s annex had responsibility for vetting the Libyan militia that they counted on, but failed to arrive, as one of the first responders on the night of the 9-11 anniversary attacks last September, according to U.S. intelligence officers and U.S. diplomats who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the press.

Yet the CIA has managed to avoid much Congressional scrutiny as House Republicans turn attention to the dramatic testimony of two new State Department whistleblowers this week that testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

The CIA has been singled out for praise because of the heroic rescue performed by its security contractors at the Benghazi annex. On that evening, two former SEALs—Glenn Doherty and Tyrone Woods—helped lead a team that rescued all but two of the U.S. personnel at the Benghazi mission that evening. U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and Sean Smith, a communications specialist, died of smoke inhalation after the attackers set the U.S. compound ablaze with cans of kerosene the raiding party found after breaching its gates. Doherty and Woods were killed at around five the next morning by mortar fire.

While CIA operatives showed heroism during the rescue, the agency failed to properly vet beforehand the February 17 Martyr’s Brigade, a local militia comprised in part by Islamist fighters who had fought against Libyan dictator Muammar Gadhafi during the 2011 revolution. The State Department’s own Accountability Review Board (ARB) found most members of the brigade—one of the best armed militias in eastern Libya, with a membership in the low thousands—failed to show up on the evening of the attacks, despite agreeing to be the compound’s “quick reaction force,” intended to perform the role of the Libyan state in a city that lacked mature security institutions.

After the attack began, brigade members declined CIA security officers attempts to join them in mounting a rescue mission, according to the ARB—which also found that three Brigade members who were stationed that evening at the compound failed to provide advanced warning that a mob of attackers with bad intentions was approaching the embassy that night, leaving the five U.S. diplomatic security officers at the compound little time to prepare a defense.

The CIA’s failure to properly vet the February 17 Martyr’s Brigade has not been disclosed by the ARB or an interim report by House Republicans released last month.

“The Benghazi compound was a U.S. intelligence station with State Department cover.” [snip]

The role of the CIA in the security failure before the Benghazi attack also sheds light on the inter-agency squabble over the talking points drafted by the CIA, but edited by the White House for senior U.S. officials about Benghazi. Those talking points said first reports suggested the attack stemmed from a protest in front of the U.S. facility in Benghazi against an anti-Muslim YouTube video. The CIA initially drafted the talking points, but the State Department objected to some references to prior CIA warnings of terror activity in Benghazi and al Qaeda’s presence in Libya’s second city because of the CIA’s own role in providing security for the Benghazi mission.

The CIA’s role in the Benghazi facility’s security was part of an arrangement with the State Department, according to a November 1 Wall Street Journal story that first disclosed several details about the true nature of the U.S. mission in Benghazi. That piece also said 23 of the 30 people evacuated from the Benghazi compound on the evening of the attack were CIA officers using State Department cover. Other U.S. officials confirmed this to The Daily Beast. “The Benghazi compound was a U.S. intelligence station with State Department cover,” one U.S. official said.

To be sure, the State Department has had similar arrangements with the CIA in other dangerous posts. The State Department did have three full time Diplomatic Security officers stationed at the mission in Benghazi and another two officers at the compound who arrived with Stevens for the visit. The State Department was also in charge of the contract for local, unarmed security guards hired through Blue Mountain Libya, who were also faulted in the ARB for failing to provide warning of the attacks on the anniversary of 9-11 in Benghazi.

But the February 17 Martyr’s Brigade was the weakest link in the security chain on the evening of the attacks. The ARB—which only makes vague mentions of the CIA’s role at the U.S. mission at Benghazi—said it was a mistake to rely on the militia despite the fact that it had performed well in June 2012 after a bomb was placed at the special mission.

“At the time of Ambassador Stevens’ visit, February 17 militia members had stopped accompanying Special Mission vehicle movements in protest over salary and working hours,” the report said.

A spokesman for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee did not respond to a request for comment on why the CIA’s role in the security failures has not been a target for the committee.

One explanation for the attention paid to the State Department could be the fact that Gen. David Petraeus—who headed the CIA at the time—is not expected to be a candidate for the presidency in 2016. Hillary Clinton, the former secretary of State, is widely expected to be running for the office as she did in 2008.

Frank Wolf, a Republican from Virginia, who has called on House Speaker John Boehner to form a special select committee to investigate Benghazi, says he is flummoxed as to why the CIA’s role has not been examined more closely. “I think it’s a legitimate question,” he said. “It was a CIA annex and they were involved in the talking points. What were they doing there?”

Wolf has gotten more than half of the House Republican caucus to sign a letter supporting his call for the special select committee on Benghazi. He said retired CIA officers have quietly asked him to meet with whistleblowers inside the CIA.

“My sense is they want to talk about what happened,” Wolf said. “The reason they have approached me is that I have been pushing the idea of a select committee since December. They know I am interested.”

Hillary Clinton was not in charge of security for the CIA compound for which the State Department was merely a cover. So those that are angry at her for the lack of security should get mad at themselves for jumping to foolish conclusions. Hillary Clinton had to stay within the restraints of the cover story for this CIA operation. Notice how even the Republicans on the committee are forced to operate within the restraints of the CIA cover story – which is why they are targeting the State Department not the CIA.

Hillary Clinton is not the culprit here. The man in charge, Barack Obama, is the culprit ultimately responsible, not Hillary Clinton.

I think it is wrong to draw any conclusion about this Benghazi thing at this point. If this plays out the way I think it might, Hillary will be exonerated, Obama will be blamed, big media will be impeached, and the Republican calling for Hillary’s head will be made to look foolish. It is always this way when you draw your conclusions based on an incomplete record, where additional facts will be forthcoming.

I think it is wrong to draw any conclusion about this Benghazi thing at this point. If this plays out the way I think it might, Hillary will be exonerated, Obama will be blamed, big media will be impeached, and the Republican calling for Hillary’s head will be made to look foolish. It is always this way when you draw your conclusions based on an incomplete record, where additional facts will be forthcoming.

I disagree completely. I think it is perfectly reasonable to draw a tentative conclusion based on the available information. For instance, it is perfectly reasonable to tentatively conclude that based on the evidednce available, Hillary is complicit in the cover-up and derelict in her duty to protect her ambassadors. Future evidence might prove this tentative conclusion wrong. But the time to abandon this tentative conclusion is when further evidence is presented exonerating Hillary and NOT before.

Apparently, CBS is not the only network with nepotism problems relating to this story. That nepotism factor makes it impossible for them to provide coverage, much less accurate coverage. The cover-up here relates to big media as well as the administration. They stink to high heaven.

rickya
May 11, 2013 at 9:24 pm
——————-
The reason I said that, rikya, is because I have this hunch that this whole thing was an off the books CIA gunrunning operation, rather than a state department issue, as it is now being portrayed. After all, Ty and Glen were CIA contractors. People have asked why they would take the risk of floating this false narrative, and in the same breath they have answered their own question, i.e. the election, etc. without considering the CIA angle on this. There is a good chance you are right, and I am not criticizing you or anyone else for drawing logical conclusions from known facts. All that I am saying is if you had all the facts in front of us, the conclusion could very well be different as it relates to Hillary, wholly, or by degree. On the other hand, I have no doubt whatsoever that Obama, and his inner circle are guilty as hell, for letting our people die, and I strongly suspect for violating the Boland Amendment. And for me, that is the case that must be proven. Will it be proven? Not at the rate we are going. Why not? Because Republicans are chomping at the bit to bring Hillary, Nuland, Mills, Pickering, Mullen and god knows who else to Congress, so the Congressmen can examine them. Well, they tried that before with Hillary and she handed them their lunch. Like Larry says, you cannot fix stupid. To do the same thing over and over is what Einstein called insanity. The way to do this, provided we want the truth, is to appoint a special prosecutor with subpoena powers, who can ask follow-up questions, nail down testimony, and press the inquiry in that manner. Short of that, this will be a complete fiasco, and a fiasco benefits only Obama, not the nation.

The other thing a special prosecutor can do is give immunity from criminal prosecution to cooperating witnesses, and if federal laws were broken as I suspect they were then that may get us the evidence we need to know exactly what happened.

The three witnesses the Republicans had this week were COOPERATING witnesses. Therefore, it was not difficult to elicit the helpful testimony they wanted, and it was very difficult for their Democrat counterparts to cross examine them, because they did not know what they would say, and they embarrassed themselves by making speeches rather than confronting the testimony. If Jim Jordan(R- Oh) inter alia get what they want in the next round, they will be HOSTILE witnesses, and it will be extremely difficult to obtain truthful, responsive answers in that forum. Again, the next step should be the appointment of a special counsel.

Having a Special Counsel with ALL the people under oath including Panetta, Petraeus, Hillary, Rice, Valerie Jarret and so on is a good idea unless they bring in a Ken Star kind of person whose only goal is to bring down the Clintons.

Listening to Republican and BO talking points and diversions to “convict” Hillary without all the facts is one of those “here we go again” situations. It would seem like there is the hand of the Bushs via Karl Rove and his ilk AND BO and his ilk to once and for all bring down Hillary.

It is the bane of every lawyers existence that he takes a firm position based on known facts, only to learn at a later date that there were certain facts, not discoverable through ordinary due diligence, which later emerge that alter the entire picture, and the conclusion which was so logically drawn at an earlier point. Here, the risk you run in drawing conclusions before we have all the facts, is it benefits a gutter snipe like Obama and it allows him to scapegoat her. Meanwhile, we have Karl Rove and his establishment Republicans who are poised to reward law breakers because it benefits the party, at the expense of the country. No border security, just amnesty, and that will set in motion a wave of migration the likes of which we have never seen which will cause our security nets to collapse. And where will that leave the rest of us, especially those retired Americans who rely on social security to survive? It will be a cold day in hell, before I ever vote for an establishment Republican. They are in pare delicto. And the worst traitor of all is Marco Rubio.

Lest we forget, he is a Bush asset. And, lest we forget, Rubio is Spanish for Red. Tell me there is not something in a name. Please do not insult our intelligence by calling him a conservative. He is not one of us.

Hillary is not “innocent” here, regardless of the responsibility or not ( not being a CIA cover up ), leading up to the attack not withstanding, she went along with the cover up, it’s always the cover up that will get you in the end.

No rose smelling here.

Ultimately, the Fraud is the leader of the pack, the buck stops here, only one with authority to tell the miltary to stand down.

Will America stand up is the question and rid itself of this festering wound…

Thousands of American teen girls are crushing on Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19 ­ and leading a social-media movement to exonerate him.
The swooning teens will not accept allegations that the college kid ­ whom they refer to by his nickname, “Jahar” ­ and his brother, Tamerlan, 26, killed three and maimed hundreds by setting off bombs at the April 15 race.

While some scrawl the hashtag “#FreeJahar” on their hands with markers, an 18-year-old in Topeka, Kan., is going to the extreme ­ she wants Dzhokhar’s words inked on her arm forever.

CNN is sticking it to Carney
——————
When it comes to liars, CNN is worse. They would not dare beat up on Obama, as any responsible news organization would do at this point. They made their Faustian Pact. Shame on the fools who give those propagandists their eyeball. I believe–I can never be entirely sure, but I do believe I have talked a friend of mine with a gold plated background in what used to be called journalism, and used to admire CNN because of their ability to marshal resources to a news story worldwide, while other news organization lacked that kind of depth, to admit their blatant bias, and that left wing maggots are now running the show. Their coverage of Katrina was 24/7. Their coverage of Benghazi by contrast has been minimal. It is a known fact that they covered up Saddam’s atrocities, as they do now with Obama’s abuses, in exchange for access and influence. The core problem is not some mechanistic issue, like getting the facts wrong. That will happen because of the information overload. The problem big media has is the Faustian Pact with Obama. That more than anything has undermined their integrity with millions of Americans, who trust them no more.

Thousands of American teen girls are crushing on Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19 ­ and leading a social-media movement to exonerate him.
——————–
Take a wild guess at who they voted for in 2012.

There are so many of these head up their ass intellectuals running interference for Obama, and parroting false facts in order to support false conclusions with respect to Beghazi that it is hard to see the forest for the trees. But not all opinions on the subject are equal, nor should they be treated as such. If we want the truth, then security experts like Larry Johnson with real expertise and reliable contacts in the intelligence community should be credited over contrary opinions by ivory towered academics, if we want to know the truth. Such an academic is Professor Ron Cole, who markets himself as a Middle East expert. I expect that Cole is a fine family man, loves his dog, and does not do peacocks. But when it comes to understanding what happened here he is ignorant as a swan–and partisan to a fault. Larry Johnson dresses Juan down in a thorough and appropriate manner. (Note: Larry has done a better job than anyone in analyzing what went on in Benghazi, based on known facts at this time. I rather expect he was one of the better analysts at CIA. He has done yeoman’s work for our nation.)
——————————–http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/75911/debunking-the-debunkers-on-benghazi/#more-75911

At one time, I started to make a list showing how many people in big media are related to those in government and lobbying firms. The list was staggering–so much so that whenever you looked at a particular pundit or talking head parroting some politically correct and counterintutive point protective of Obama, the logical question became, okay fine, and who in the White House are they related to? Incest at its worst. When a friend of mine and I, son of a San Francisco judge, were campaining for Hillary in central Pennsylvania (Kitani), we heard tales about how Linda Douglas of ABC, and her husband a democrat lawyer were throwing a big bash of media types for Obama, and we wondered if there was any way we could crash their party. Later, Douglas left ABC and was assigned the role of monitor of the Tea Parties and others who were opposed to Obama care. That is what has happened. Big media and the White House are a revolving door, and even when the door does not revolve, media and administration personnel are married to each other. They have become an interest group onto themselves which is why as Soros amigo Tom Brokaw gladly proclaims that Washington has become the new Versailles, as this elite group loots the nation.

So you want to know why these 3 stations are hardly covering Benghazi?

According to Rick Grenell, Former State Department Spokesman for the last 4 U.S. Ambassadors to the UN , , ,

CBS’ News President David Rhodes AND ABC’s News President Ben Sherwood both have siblings that not only work at the White House, not only work for Obama, but these siblings also work at the NSC on foreign policy issues directly related to Benghazi!

Republicans for some reason have high hopes that the hearing on what happened in Benghazi will break through and have a political impact. One of the Senate’s leading hawks, Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., says the “dam is about to break” on the issue. John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has suggested it could bring down the Obama administration.

For that to happen, it’s going to take a lot more than we know today. It’s true that voters are skeptical about the administration’s handling of the issue. Just 32 percent believe the president’s team has done a good job explaining what happened. Forty percent say the explanations have been poor.

Eight out of 10 believe it’s important to learn what actually happened. That includes 51 percent who say learning the truth is “very important.”

The public is also doubtful that justice will be served. Only 40 percent are even somewhat confident that the ambassador’s murderers will be caught and punished.

But as has been the case since he first assumed office, President Obama continues to earn better marks on foreign policy than he gets for handling the economy. The latest numbers show that 47 percent give the president good marks on national security, while only 33 percent rate his performance as poor.

With the public largely tuning out foreign policy topics, it will take some pretty spectacular revelations to change those perceptions. Until that happens, it’s likely that economic issues and the president’s health care law will be the driving issues of the 2014 elections.—Scott Rassmussen

I believe that the srategy that the Republicans will employ is to go after Hillary to get to Obama. That is the only way that the truth will be told about Benghazi. This will give them the most bang out of their buck. They destroy the chances of the strongest Democratic presidential candidate and force her to speak the truth about Benghazi which will then implicate Obama.

That is unless, Hillary was really the one to blame for the messaging on Benghazi and the security arrangements for the consulate. In which case the damage will be confined to Hillary. Which is still good for the Republicans.

I believe that this will hurt Hillary more than Obama since the Republicans need to go through her to get to Obama. Unfortunately for Hillary, she can’t throw Obama under the bus without hurting her chances in 2016.

I disagree with Scott Rassmussen on his analysis. The Benghazi incident will move the needle even if the public generally tunes out foreign policy. This incident is about character – transparency, honesty, integrity. The public is going to care about this and this will be reflected in future polling.

Admin> Whenever I start to believe maybe there is some hope, I have to temper my reaction. The two constants in our political system are: i) a uber corrupt media, and ii) a dumb electorate. Those two defects trump everything else. And when I think well maybe the other party can save the system, I see Marco Rubio, commenting on the Benghazi hearings. Who cares what Marco Rubio says? He has shown us his true colors. The following article is by a RINO whom I do not respect. But like the proverbial broken clock he is right twice a day. Or maybe in his case, just once. Fortunately, that once happens to be now.
———————–

The Associated Press is reporting that senior officials of the IRS knew back in June of 2011 that the agency was targeting groups with “Tea Party,” “Patriot,” and “9/12 Project” in their names. At that point, Lois Lerner, who oversees the IRS department dealing with tax-exempt status, told the employees to change the criteria for flagging tax-exempt groups “immediately.”

But the criteria weren’t changed until January of 2012:

The Treasury Department’s inspector general for tax administration is expected to release the results of a nearly yearlong investigation in the coming week. The AP obtained part of the draft report, which has been shared with congressional aides.

Among the other revelations, on Aug. 4, 2011, staffers in the IRS’ Rulings and Agreements office “held a meeting with chief counsel so that everyone would have the latest information on the issue.”

On Jan, 25, 2012, the criteria for flagging suspect groups was changed to, “political action type organizations involved in limiting/expanding Government, educating on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, social economic reform/movement,” the report says.

While this was happening, several committees in Congress were writing IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman to express concern because tea party groups were complaining of IRS harassment.

In Shulman’s responses, he did not acknowledge targeting of tea party groups. At a congressional hearing March 22, 2012, Shulman was adamant in his denials.

“There’s absolutely no targeting. This is the kind of back and forth that happens to people” who apply for tax-exempt status, Shulman said at the House Ways and Means subcommittee hearing.

The portion of the draft report reviewed by the AP does not say whether Shulman or anyone else in the Obama administration outside the IRS was informed of the targeting. But it is standard procedure for agency heads to consult with staff before responding to congressional inquiries.

Shulman was appointed by President George W. Bush, a Republican. His 6-year term ended in November. President Barack Obama has yet to nominate a successor. The agency is now run by an acting commissioner, Steven Miller.

It appears that the IRS didn’t cease and desist until it became clear that Congress was getting suspicious. Are they seriously making the argument that they found out about the practice in June of 2011 and then it took seven months to change the criteria after Ms. Lerner ordered the practice halted “immediately”? What were they doing over those seven months while conservatives were being harassed and bullied? And who promulgated the original criteria in the first place?

And what do you make of the timing of this political hot potato? Out of the clear, blue sky Lois Lerner volunteers this dynamite information, dropping it on a lazy Friday afternoon with Benghazi sucking up all the oxygen in the media universe. Not exactly subtle are they?

The administration will go to the ends of the earth to keep Obama from any taint of scandal here. Using the IRS for political purposes is just the sort of thing conservatives have been looking for since Obama took office.

One of the articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon was his use of the IRS to harass and destroy his political enemies.

I expect that when the investigation commences, we will discover that Mr.Shulman is not only an Obama appointee, but an Obama operative.

Notice there was a call for his resignation, in response to findings that he was giving away taxpayer monies to illegals.

How generous of him.

———————————-

IRS supervisors ignored employees who tried to warn agency higher-ups of fraud in a program designed to collect taxes from immigrants, resulting in the agency paying out potentially bogus refunds, according to an official audit released Wednesday.

The Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration (TIGTA) said the IRS is too focused on getting out refunds quickly rather than getting them only to qualified taxpayers. Auditors also said the agency eliminated some methods employees had used to figure out questionable refund requests and doesn’t have the right training or tools to screen out bogus identity documents when immigrants apply for taxpayer numbers.

“TIGTA found an environment which discourages employees from detecting fraudulent applications,” said J. Russell George, the inspector general.

In the wake of the finding, one congressman called on the IRS commissioner to resign.

IRS pays out $6.8 billion in refunds to taxpayers who file using Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs). They generally are immigrants, here both legally and illegally. The potential amount of fraud was not stated, but the investigators detailed seven schemes that paid out $9 million in tax refunds in 2011

Shulman was appointed by President George W. Bush, a Republican. His 6-year term ended in November. President Barack Obama has yet to nominate a successor. The agency is now run by an acting commissioner, Steven Miller.
——————————-
I see he was appointed by the other Obama–George Bush.

I believe that this will hurt Hillary more than Obama since the Republicans need to go through her to get to Obama. Unfortunately for Hillary, she can’t throw Obama under the bus without hurting her chances in 2016.
——————-
If it comes to that, then there are subtler ways to do it. For example, LJ reported today that he was used by the Hillary campaign to float the whitey tape against Obama, because she did not want to do that directly. But then they never produced it, which left Larry holding the bag. Trust me, there is far more at stake here than just 2016. There is the whole Clinton legacy, and she is not going to sacrifice that on the alter of “our first black president”, by taking the fall alone. Even if she were so inclined, which I seriously doubt, I doubt very much that Bill would allow it. The Clintons are not amateurs, Obama has enemies, his Pratorian Guard in the press are in trouble, and he is a lame duck.

One more observation about the much ballyhooed Accountability Review Board. It is now being investigated by the State Department’s own Inspector General. Why? The board refused to meet with Senior career State Department officials who were involved in the events surrounding Benghazi. I know personally one of the officers who repeatedly asked for a meeting and had relevant information to provide. The ARB refuse to meet with this officer. Inexcusable. I once held the ARB Chairman, Ambassador Thomas Pickering in highest regard. Sadly, he dishonored himself and his reputation by this improper conduct and his refusal to pursue the truth L.J.
——————-
The cover-up here is exponential. It is as if all of Washington is covering up here so the rest of the county never gets wise.

You can call big media’s performance on the Benghazi story abysmal if you like, for that it what it is, but I would prefer to see it as a paradigmatic example of how they operate. When you see an eminently newsworthy story such as this be ignored in toto by mainstream media, and investigators like Sharyl Atkisson who wish to pursue it marginalized and threatened with their job, you realize there is something larger at work. To say it is just the liberal press at work is to miss the essential point. Yes indeed, they are liberal, but that is not even the half of it. The main reason for this conspiracy of silence, is we are not dealing with a group of competitor news outlets. On the contrary, what we are dealing with is a cartel. It is like OPEC, which is comprised of separate nation states, which combine for the purpose of controlling oil prices. In the case of big media, they combine in a similar manner to protect an agreed upon narrative, which is one that enhances their power and economic well being at the expense of the country. If you proceed on the assumption that this is journalism, then you will be at a loss to explain what you are seeing. The skeptical mindset and the attention to facts and the corroboration of sources are conspicuous by their absence. And now that the nature of things is more widely understood than in was in say, 2008, you have insiders like Pelly at CBS coming before us to offer false explanations for what is occurring, which is as I say, not journalism. They say it is the flood tide of information, and competition from the internet, where opinions are not boiled in the cauldron of truth, skepticism and fact checking. I heard the same thing from Weston when I spoke to him last year on a book tour–he was in charge of the ABC newsroom. But that explanation is bogus. The problem big media is a cartel, and their motive is precisely what I have described. They may call themselves journalists, but they are not. The guy who figured this whole thing out before anyone else did was George Soros.

They do this oh so cleverly. Instead of sitting down as a group and agreeing upon a narrative, which would be akin to price fixing, and could get them into trouble with their readership, they go to industry meetings, the head of AP for example makes gives a speech telling everyone how great Obama is, NYT and WashPo speakers do the same thing, then colleagues you know take positions inside the White House, and the not so subtle message sent out, without anyone having to say it directly is if you want to have friends in this town, then Obama nil nisi bonum–say only good things about Obama. But if these people are robbing you and lining their own pockets then why listen to them.

Wbboei, in our article there is an explicit call for HillaryLand to commence the counterattack. The leaks to Dailybeast are that first shot in the counterattack.

BTW, if LJ floated a story without the evidence LJ should have his head examined. When we have been asked to propel a story we flatly refuse. If evidence is provided and we have it we have written stories but they are our stories based on evidence. Only a fool would “take our word for it, the check is in the mail”.

“On the contrary, what we are dealing with is a cartel. It is like OPEC, which is comprised of separate nation states, which combine for the purpose of controlling oil prices. In the case of big media, they combine in a similar manner to protect an agreed upon narrative, which is one that enhances their power and economic well being at the expense of the country.”
********
I was always pissed off that the Librul media was oddly supportive of Bush/Cheney until Katrina. The NYT above the fold Judy Miller WMD, Aluminum tube stories, were waved by Cheney, et al on the Sunday morning shows to sell a ruinous war. WaPO supported “No Child Left Behind” because it’s corporate cash cow, Kaplan, Inc., would make millions. Warren Buffett is a major WaPo stockholder, you can bet that WaPo won’t report the financial windfall that Buffett gets by Obama delaying Keystone. etc., etc., etc.

The incestuous relationship between Govt, “News Media”, business/finance, etc. is an incurable disease that is killing this country. Good luck in getting anyone to connect the dots and give the American people a true picture of how they are being manipulated.

According to Lisa Myers of NBC news, Democrats are starting to get worried about the testimony delivered by the Benghazi whistleblowers on Wednesday. Myers says she has been the recipient of phone calls by Democrats who are trying to undermine that testimony.

Sen. Collins: Obama should condemn IRS for targeting Tea Party groups. By Sam Baker – 05/12/13 10:28 AM ET Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said Sunday that President Obama needs to personally address the IRS’s targeting of conservative political groups. “I think it’s very disappointing that the president hasn’t personally condemned this and spoken out,” Collins said. “His spokesman has said that it should be investigated, but the president needs to make crystal clear that this is totally unacceptable in America.” Collins said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that “it is absolutely chilling” for the IRS to target political groups…. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/299197-sen-collins-obama-should-condemn-irs-for-targeting-conservatives

I was always pissed off that the Librul media was oddly supportive of Bush/Cheney until Katrina. The NYT above the fold Judy Miller WMD, Aluminum tube stories, were waved by Cheney, et al on the Sunday morning shows to sell a ruinous war. WaPO supported “No Child Left Behind” because it’s corporate cash cow, Kaplan, Inc., would make millions.
—————
Me too.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said Sunday that President Obama needs to personally address the IRS’s targeting of conservative political groups. “I think it’s very disappointing that the president hasn’t personally condemned this and spoken out,” Collins said. “His spokesman has said that it should be investigated, but the president needs to make crystal clear that this is totally unacceptable in America.” Collins said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that “it is absolutely chilling” for the IRS to target political groups
———————————-
How naive on her part. The only deterrent would be a House Ways and Means Committee Investigation. Is Collins aware of this? Does she realize that a hearing is being scheduled? Is she trying to pre-empt it? Is she trying to give Obama a way off the hook? Does she really believe that an apology, like Obama has done so often in the past, for real or imagined grievances, would have ANY deterrent effect on the future conduct of agencies in his chain of command? Or would it turn out to be nothing more than a wink and nod.

Can you outline a scenario where Hillary ends up smelling like roses on the Benghazi issue? You always have some insight into these things that few of us have. I can’t come up with such a scenario.

Even if this can be blamed on Obama and the CIA, Hillary would still be tarnished by this episode. And from the looks of the emails, the cover-up was initiated by her chief of staff and not by the White House.

Early on wikipedia states Neil was determined to be dyslexic. Also seemed to be in undercurrent of much else: founding director, along with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI), of the Foundation for Interreligious and Intercultural Research and Dialogue (FIIRD). I’ll end with that.
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Re Sen Collins, I appreciate the commentary embellishment .

The Obama administration has been carrying out an unprecedented crackdown on whistleblowers, particularly on those who have divulged information that relates to national security. The Espionage Act, enacted during the first World War to punish Americans who aided the enemy, had only been used three times in its history to try government officials accused of leaking classified information ­ until the Obama administration. Since 2009, the administration has used the act to prosecute six government officials. Meet the whistleblowers.

foxyladi14
May 12, 2013 at 5:50 pm
——————–
Will Dennis save the world? Well, that is a tall order. But he will save this detainee. Most likely. It is reasonable to assume that by now, the detainee has become a burden to Kim Joe Ill. Surely, his propaganda value has diminished with the passage of time. Therefore, it is only natural that Kim would ask his friend for life Dennis to relieve him of the burden. This is what friends do. It is what Jessee used to do when he was not too busy spitting in white people’s hamburgers, fraternizing with the female help, etc. So Dennis figures if Jessee can do it, then any black man can do it, and if any black man can do it, then why not moi? Hard to argue with such cogent logic.

Question: is Dennis positioning himself to become Ambassador to North Korea. A newly established position in the Obama Administration, more coveted than the role of Ambassador to The Court of St. James.

Rickya, the question is not how “Hillary ends up smelling like roses” on Benghazi. The question you should ask is how you can even suggest: “Even if this can be blamed on Obama and the CIA Hillary would still be tarnished by this episode. And from the looks of the emails, the cover-up was initiated by her chief of staff and not by the White House.”

Frankly the irrationality of what you have written, which is being repeated by many here and at other supposed Hillary Clinton websites, is astounding. We really don’t know how to make things clearer. We don’t know how to wield the English language with sufficient skill to help the unwilling see the obvious connect the dots story here.

How can you say “Hillary would still be tarnished by this episode” even if it “can be blamed on Obama and the CIA”? We’re flabbergasted. We’re not being nasty or obnoxious or obtuse, although we can see how you and others might take this reply to be such, but we are just stupefied as to how to respond.

Consider what we know, not speculate, but now know, which we did not know. First, Benghazi was not a consulate but rather a “diplomatic facility” – in other words a CIA front. That is not disputed.

Second, Hillary never had control over security at the facility even if it had ever been a State Department operation (there are security personnel in charge of that and security memos sent to the Secretary essentially get auto-penned) which in this case it was not (it was CIA) and therefore Hillary did not have any control over security whatsoever. In an article we posted the other day the blame for not preparing the CIA facility/State Department facility in advance of September 11 and for trusting Libyan militias for compound security falls on the CIA – we can only suspect that few read that comment or understood its import.

Third, Hillary cannot outright say “it’s a CIA front” without offending national security. Before making a “guilty” verdict it is wise to consider we still do not know what was really going on there and who was doing what to whom. There are other things we still do not know.

For instance: what was Chris Stevens doing in Benghazi on September 11? This story http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/25/was-syrian-weapons-shipment-factor-in-ambassadors-benghazi-visit/ suggests that Stevens was meeting with the Turkish Consul General Ali Sait Akin one hour before the fighting began. Why would Stevens be meeting with a Turkish diplomat in far off Benghazi and not in Ankara or Tripoli? Could it be that it was to arrange the transfer of weapons from Libya to Turkey then to Syria in secrecy far from prying eyes in Tripoli, Ankara, or any other secure area? We don’t even know if Stevens was only working for the State Department. Was Stevens CIA working under cover of the State Department? State Department personnel from all governments usually include a substantial proportion of intelligence officers – we hope we are not shocking anyone. If any of this is true then what Hillary would have to do would be to blow a CIA cover off in order to save herself. Valerie Plame anyone?

We also don’t know what was going on with munitions transfers. Were they going on or not? Who authorized these transfers? We hope that the dolts denouncing Hillary as irreparably damaged are not suggesting that Hillary was the one that transferred or ordered such transfers. She simply does not have the authority to do so. But of course those declaring “guilty” know so much more than we do.

We also don’t know who issued the stand down orders. We know there are idiots who surmise Hillary did this too. We’ve also read on certain “Hillary” sites, people who should know better or say they know better than the DailyKooks but are exhibiting the same level of animal ugliness as DailyKooks, that it was Hillary who is responsible for the video producer being arrested and jailed. Amazing how much power Hillary has that she can get people jailed by the Obama henchmen.

As to the allegation that “the cover-up was initiated by her chief of staff and not by the White House” we can only bang our heads on a desk. How so? Consider, if Benghazi was a CIA operation, Cheryl Mills was trying to insulate the State Department from damage without blowing the CIA cover which somehow does not occur to some that it would be illegal to do so and at the very least would mean security clearances would be imperiled by such actions. We posted an article from the Washington Post the other day which addressed the possibility that this is what motivated Cheryl Mills but our generous interpretation is that either some did not read it or do not comprehend the import of this information.

With all the unanswered questions and lack of evidence it seems to us the wise thing is to have a strong investigation and let the facts speak.

Something else we do know, from our reliance on rationality, is that the person who benefited from the Benghazi cover-up was and is Barack Obama. We know that it was in Barack Obama’s interest to block any news and actions which could have endangered his reelection.

We also do know from Barack Obama’s history that he loves to shift the blame to others. We do know from Hillary Clinton’s history that if she has a fault it is her loyalty and caring for those that work with her. Now, perhaps the world is inverted and Barack Obama is the innocent and Hillary Clinton is the one trying to shift blame onto others but we don’t think so.

By the way, you do know that everyone is in agreement that only Obama could have issued a stand down order right? And you do know that General Petraeus was not happy with the talking points finalized before Susan Rice embarrassed the nation on TV and according to Jonathan Karl Petraeus said it was the ‘White House’s call’. And of course we won’t speculate as to whether Petraeus was being blackmailed by the White House which knew of the ongoing investigations of Petraeus at the same time he was skeptical of the talking points.

If in fact it was Obama that directed potentially illegal weapons transfers (or is Hillary to be blamed for this as well) to Syria via Turkey and Obama that shut Petraeus up via blackmail (or was that Hillary too) and Obama that issued stand down orders (of course Hillary is commander in chief and commands the armed forces) and Obama who went to sleep while Hillary stayed awake trying to do something/anything then yes, we can smell a scenario whereby Hillary comes out rosey fresh.

A final point: we don’t blame Republicans for hitting Hillary on Benghazi. As our article states, it is a rational thing for them to do and will ‘shake the tree’ some and get them more information as infighting erupts. But if their “attacks” are overplayed and wild allegations against Hillary are made then Hillary will emerge stronger than ever and with a fresh rose scent. That is something that Republicans are aware of and they are being careful even as they walk things back. Today McCain said: “I think the secretary of state has played a role in this. She had to have been in the loop some way, but we don’t know for sure.” That seems fair to us and we certainly do think that Hillary should be asked to testify under oath.

Now, can you see a scenario wherein Hillary comes out smelling like a rose?

I think we can interpret this gibberish as the sound of the legendary Obama Bus of Doom shifting into first gear and rolling toward Hillary Clinton. The groundwork is now laid for a big coordinated push by Democrat operatives in the media to portray Clinton as a rogue loose cannon who cooked up these phony talking points with the assistance of protocol droids like Victoria Nuland, while poor helpless Barack Obama was completely out of the loop. Why, he and Biden were probably as shocked as the rest of us to hear Gregory Hicks’ testimony yesterday!

The bus will roll over Nuland first – she’s going to be painted as a loose cannon who spent days doctoring intelligence reports without the knowledge of poor, helpless Hillary Clinton. If that doesn’t work, Hillary will be the next deer frozen in the headlights… except the Clintons don’t do that deer-in-the-headlights stuff. They fight back. That will make things interesting, especially as people like Boehlert find their in-boxes filling up with conflicting talking points from Team Obama and Team Clinton.

I doubt Boehlert has thought far enough ahead to realize that he’s on the verge of making the exact same point Clint Eastwood made at the Republican convention: the Oval Office is dominated by an empty chair, with Barack Obama totally out of the loop while Americans are killed in a terrorist attack, and a false narrative that both dishonored the dead, and prompted liberals to openly question the First Amendment, was promoted. The question now is whether Hillary is able to make the case that when it comes to Benghazi, her chair was empty first.

We don’t think Hillary will claim an empty chair. But it is Breitbart after all and at least they have the sense to see the Benghazi story for what it is.

We wrote months, years, ago that Obama would not allow Hillary to be the next nominee. Why then is stuff like this shift the blame to Hillary not understood by those who are supposed to know better?

But even under the scenario that you outlined, I don’t see how she comes out smelling like a rose. If the defense is, its’ not me but Obama and the CIA who is responsible for protecting this facility. I think that might exonarate her but she won’t come out smelling like a rose. Some of the stink will rub off on her.

It is a fact that her chief of staff was active in the deliberations to revise the talking points. As to why she did it, it doesn’t matter. It only matters that they changed it from something closer to the truth to something further from the truth. That Cheryl Mills was trying to insulate the State Department again might exonarate Hillary to some degree but will NOT make her come off smelling like a rose. Some of the stink of the deception that the talking points perpetrated will rub off on Hillary.

I do agree that the cover-up benefited Obama the most. But that fact doesn’t exonerate Hillary completely. It can be argued that she needed Obama to win for her to win in 2016 and that Obama’s interest coincided with her interest at least in the 2012 elections.

TREASON AT BENGHAZI
This is what really happened at Benghazi as told by a White House aide who was there serving Obama :

“On that day Obama arrived at the White House at 5:40 pm and was met by several Generals and Cabinet members. They told him our Embassy in Benghazi was being attacked & showed him the desperate requests for help by Ambassador Stevens and other Embassy personnel.

Calmly Obama went to the Situation Room with them sat down and saw the attack in real time; a drone was feeding the White House with real time video of the Benghazi attack.

When AlQaida started using RPG’s the Ambassador made his last request for help. General Ham handed the note to Obama and said He could send in the Marines…..Obama face became purple with anger and shouted :”Stand down General…Stand down” …There was silence in the room, the military were astounded at Obama’s treasonous lack of action to save Americans in peril.

Minutes after the Ambassador was captured, raped and killed, the rest of the Americans were also raped and killed by the wild AlQaida mob..

When the attack was over and the Ambassador was being dragged on the streets ….Obama calmly got up, smiled, left the room and went to bed. It was almost 3 am.

As I watched the video of Issa on Meet The Press, I noted a certain cautiousness on his part in not coming to premature conclusions on this matter. I got the same sense when I listened to Jordan who has been a firebrand on this. I do not think they are pulling back one iota, but I do think they realize, now that they have finally gotten the attention of big media, that they had better have their facts straight, and they must also have the stuff. I thought he handled the amateurish Gregory and his accusatory questions rather deftly, and did not succumb to Gregory’s attempt to paint the whole thing as political, which would have protected the interests of the big media cartel. My interest in all this is that the attacks be directed, or redirected to Obama, who is the original source of this failure, and so many others. I am not worried about Issa, but I do hope other Republicans keep their powder dry, lest they advance a narrative they cannot prove. The feeble attempt by NBC to dismiss this episode as no different from many others, and to imply that it must, therefore, the investigation must be politically inspired, is the practical equivalent of saying that two men are the same because neither one of them is named James. The cover-up we see here, the failure to respond, the unavailability of the CIC, the stand down order, and the timing on the eve of an election make it completely unique. Most of all however was the riveting testimoy of Hicks, Thompson and Nordstrom, and the efforts made to silence their testimony. It could be that part of the reason was related to an Iran style contra operation, the disclosure of which would be harmful not only to Obama (to me is immaterial), but to United States interests in general. To paraphrase a man whose name goes down like a mouth full of grass burrs, we don’t know what we don’t know. As for the Republican Party, if their game is simply one dimensional in the sense of forming a temporary marriage of convenience with the far left, then they have learned nothing from the sordid affair between Porky Pig aka Karl Rove and the Wildebeest aka Donna Brazil which spawned Obama. Where Hillary is concerned, the constituency I would be most interested in reassuring is the intelligence community, because they need reassurance. Without that, they will become a tool of Republicans. That would not bother me if it was Issa. It is the rest of them I am worried about. Right now, they are more important than the press.

“also made a few bux from brother W’s No Child via his Ignite software company.”
*********
I had forgotten about Neil…IIRC, it was Barbara Bush who gave a large tax deductible donation for Katrina relief with the stipulation that it was to buy “educational” software from Neil’s company.

The Admiral is right it does border on a criminal act on the Presidents part. I say there is﻿ no doubt to me he was more concerned with the election then doing what needed to be done ,so he lied trying to blame youtube videos instead of accepting the blame ,and eventually passing the blame onto Hillary Clinton as his final comment on Benghazi Libya attack. If he is allowed to get away with doing nothing it will sum up what he has acomplished as President. Nothing !

It can be argued that she needed Obama to win for her to win in 2016 and that Obama’s interest coincided with her interest at least in the 2012 elections.
——————————-
I do not see how she needed Obama to win for her to win in 2016, unless you are assuming that if Romney won he would get two terms. Is that the argument you are referring to? It could be argued the other way too, namely that if Obama won a second term, he would not endorse her, and he would commit so many blunders that the democrat brand would be compromised, just as the republican brand was damaged by Bush.

Well the argument will go….she needed him to win since his loss would mean a repudiation of all his policies….policies she appeared to agree with. It would be a harder sell for Hillary to say that she disagreed with Obama.

That said, I am not privy to the calculus that went into Bill and Hillary’s decision to go all out for Obama in the 2012 elections. But assuming that Bill and Hillary actually agrees with Obama’s policies will not be going out on a limb. It would also fit nicely into the narrative that it was a ‘quid pro quo’ thing. Bill goes all out for Obama, Obama endorses Hillary.

wbboei
May 12, 2013 at 10:44 pm
——————-
Even Republicans acknowledge that the country would be far better off if Hillary had won. Her experience as Senator who passed more bi-partisan legislation than any freshmen in history, indicates she could solve problems and reach across the aisle. Obama’s record as a legislator was bare as a goat’s ass and long as a whores dream. Far from solving problems he ran away from them, voting present whenever he could. Hillary was out for the middle class, whereas Obama and his big media accomplices call them the chick fillet crowd. Bill and Hillary presided over a growing economy and a surplus. By the time he lives office he will have saddled the American people, their children and grandchildren with ten trillion of additional debt. Hillary would have achieved a peace accord in the middle east and our enemies would respect us, because they would know when she drew a red line, and they crossed it, there would be consequences. Hillary would have never turned our health care system over to big business as Obama did. Hillary would have pursued the vision of Dr. King, not Reverend Wright. Hillary was endorsed by 36 flag rank officers, whereas Obama was endorsed by only one–General McPeak who is a reprobate, and a 90 day wonder as head of Air Force–his single accomplishment being that he changed their uniforms, everyone hated it, and his successor changed them back. Hillary made it very clear that she was not running as a woman but as an American. Obama changed his logo, the presidential seal, and introduced the most radical agenda in American History, and like Aron Burr, his agenda was to carve up the United States. Hillary is a great American and Obama is a citizen of the world, and like his mentor Soros a rootless Cosmopolitan. Hillary has a history, Obama’s history is shrouded in lies, inuendo and false stories.

So when you say Hillary appears to go along with his policies, the operative word in the sentence is appears. And the only reason it appears to be that way is because she has embraced a position which was expressed to me by Ann Lewis–that Hillary does not believe in attacking another democrat. That was Reagan’s policy as well in re. republicans. When your opponent is as ruthless and anti American as Obama, you cannot give him the benefit of the doubt.

Bill goes all out for Obama, Obama endorses Hillary.
————————
With other candidates that might be possible, but not with Obama. Obama is a snake, and he speaks with a forked tongue. There is no way he will endorse Hillary, because he will not allow her to control the party, and claim his legacy. And history has shown that his mentor, Soros, cannot be trusted either. But I am not an insider, so I am just guessing.

Arab Spring plus Obama’s overthrow of Gaddaffi produced the monster that attacked our Benhazi Embassy and killed four Americans. Young Mr. Rhoades should be damned proud of himself for this. And so should his brother, head of CBS.

Not trying to be contentious here, wbboei. But wasn’t Hillary the one who lobbied for more involvement in Libya? Didn’t Hillary want more involvement and Obama less? Wasn’t Obama criticized for leading from behind on Libya and Hillary lauded for her more hawkish stand on Libya?

Taken on its own, the KOMO 4 News report below out of Seattle paints a stark and frightening picture of police battling “angry parents” in a simulated shooting at a school. The practice of police training to take on everything from homeschoolers to patriots and constitutionalists – “rightwing extremists” in government parlance – is anything but a rarity. Such exercises are now a prominent feature of the expanding police state. . . .

Homeschool parents and organizations, as well, would be wise to combat insidious government propaganda that likens them to terrorists. Left unopposed, this massive brainwashing effort will convert an entire generation into believing that homeschooling is not only evil and socially harmful, but it breeds terrorists. The goal is to completely eradicate parent directed education and the threat it poses to public indoctrination mills that train children to passively participate in their own destruction while simulatenously worshipping government.

Breaking: SEAL Parents Demand Obama Explain Why Their Son Was Allowed to Be Desecrated At His Memorial Service By Islamic Cleric (Video)

Karen and Billy Vaughn lost her SEAL son Aaron in 2011 in Afghanistan along with 16 other Navy SEALs.
At the memorial service in Afghanistan an Islamic cleric desecrated their son and the other SEALs.
Now they’re speaking out.

Until I found our about who this guy is, and the fact that far from promoting the only honest investigative reporter in the business, he was retaliating against her to protect Obama, and hiding evidence on the eve of the election, I was prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt. No more. Pat Caddell was spot on when he called big media the enemy of democracy, and they are part of that cabal. Sooner a piano player in a whore house, than a journalist with big media. I long for the day when the American People realize how they are being played by big media. But that assumes a form of enlightenment on their part which is unlikely to occur this side of the grave, and on the other side, it will no longer matter. But trust me this much: Rhoades is a scumbag.

I mentioned Weston. He is the former head of ABC News after Roon Alderige, etc. I spoke to him at a town hall meeting. He was full of stories about how Babawawa scooped a competitor on getting a prized interview with Fidel. Well, hearing that kept me on the edge of my chair, hanging on his every word, and wondering who the fuck cares? These people live in a bubble. What we, or at least I do care about he does not care about, namely the Faustian Pact which has corrupted journalism. He argues that big media is more reliable than other sources of information because they have experienced journalists, are skeptical and check their facts. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are propagandists for Obama, and that is the overriding problem that has caused them to break faith with country.

Even the Left is admitting that Barack Obama has fatally hurt future bipartisanship efforts.

By: Moe Lane (Diary) | May 12th, 2013 at 11:30 AM | 6

RESIZE: AAA

John Dickerson took perhaps too long to get to this paragraph, and he wrote it through gritted teeth, but he does put a finger on the central problem for the Obama administration right now:

The substantive differences between the president and Republicans on the budget may be insurmountable, but now it seems like even if the pipe dream of a substantive budget agreement could be reached it wouldn’t be enough. Even if Republican senators can engage in a trust-building exercise with the White House, how can they convince their constituents that the president is offering them a fair deal on the budget? A poisoned well is now roiling. Any Republican who tries to convince their constituents about a deal will now likely get funny looks. Their constituents would wonder why they were engaged in negotiations with an administration that has told evolving stories about its response to the attack in Benghazi and that houses an IRS targeting conservative groups.

And here’s the thing: their constituents would be right. The IRS thing is the really bad one, actually, given that it’s really really easy to explain that one in terms that everybody gets intuitively. They have violated one of the more sacred rules of our democracy: you do not use the tax code to punish your opponents. And what will compound the problem is that I have precisely zero confidence that the Obama administration will have the good sense to beat the IRS until it’s howling for mercy AND conduct a public and messy internal purge of White House staffers. The former is likely; the latter is not. And it’s the latter that’s going to have to happen if the Obama administration wants to stand down from the current situation.

holdthemaccountable
May 13, 2013 at 7:12 am
———————-
Right message. Wrong messenger. The author of this article is a jurnolister. He is not worried about defending the tea party. He has gone out of his way to vilify them, just like the rest of big media. He is not their defender. What he is worried about is that in a future Republican regime, OFA will be subject to similar scrutiny. That is what is going on here. Little Ezra.

Blame big media. They covered up for Obama. And they have promoted this cultural sickness that afflicts this nation.
————————————–

Seven years of college and all they know is targeting “patriots” and those educating about the Constitution and Bill of Rights

Posted by William A. Jacobson Monday, May 13, 2013 at 8:46am

There is so much wrong with the IRS scandal at so many levels, it’s almost hard to know where to start.

It goes way beyond abuse of power, although it certainly is that.

It is, as Newt said this morning on Morning Joe, “culturally sick” (emphasis added):

“[Obama] also owes every tea party in America, every group called patriot, every group that wants to study the Constitution an apology,” Gingrich said. “How can you have an American government profile against the word patriot? I mean, there’s something culturally sick if the American government says ‘Boy, you put that word constitution in your name, we’re going to come after you.’ Again, this isn’t an administration that is shocked at the idea of profiling for terrorism but apparently had an entire part of the IRS that was profiling for patriotism. I find that to be very, very chilling in terms of our political liberty.”

This is part of the world view raised on the radical education which permeates our higher education system — and increasingly our lower education system — which views the United States as the greatest problem in the world, which seeks to snuff out patriotism, which considers teaching about the Constitution and Bill of Rights at best quaint and at worst a racist dog whistle seeking a return to slavery.

After the proverbial seven years of college, all they know is to demonize and target patriots and those who want to educate others about the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

If you have the slightest doubt, read through the Saturday Night Card Game series and College Insurrection.

This cultural sickness needs to be the focus, not just the actions of individuals at the IRS who are products of that cultural sickness.

You lost me on that one hta.
—————-
No dispute with your statements, wbb. But ahead of checking the video you cite, I’ll respond this way. I gave CBS an acknowledgment because a particular Benghazi video they’d shown a few times last week continued to be aired on their evening broadcasts over the weekend and I think even early this morning. Otherwise over the weekend, no other network I know of bothered with Benghazi or IRS TP or any other DC topic. WPIX, which used to be my benchmark but has fallen badly regarding anything as distant as DC, had the IRS in a crawl which appeared to be edited daily – like the Benghazi emails lol. At last look it said “IRS apologizes for targeting certain groups.” Because those observations, I thought CBS deserved a mention. Definitely not an absolution. Perhaps there is a struggle going on within CBS. I hope so.

There is a station around here that is quite accessible to public input and I sometimes use their mechanisms to prod the people who work there to press against the crap their corporation sends to them. I can be down, but I guess I can never give up.

Hillary is to blame….bla, bla, bla, she lied to parents….bla, bla, bla.

Some days I just can’t stand to be on Big Pink because of the comments.

Then Admin posts a comment like this that I not only agree with 100%, but it lifts my spirts:
“Hillary Clinton was not in charge of security for the CIA compound for which the State Department was merely a cover. So those that are angry at her for the lack of security should get mad at themselves for jumping to foolish conclusions. Hillary Clinton had to stay within the restraints of the cover story for this CIA operation. Notice how even the Republicans on the committee are forced to operate within the restraints of the CIA cover story – which is why they are targeting the State Department not the CIA.

Hillary Clinton is not the culprit here. The man in charge, Barack Obama, is the culprit ultimately responsible, not Hillary Clinton.”

holdthemaccountable
May 13, 2013 at 10:05 am
————————-
I defended CBS as well, when all I knew that was they were letting Sharyl investigate Fast and Furious and then Benghazi. But then they stopped, and began censoring her, and threatened her job. And then I learned that the president of that network is tied to the Obama administration by blood and ideology. At that point, I figured, —res ipsa locuitur–the thing speaks for itself. And then I learned that they covered up part of the Croft interview on the eve of the election.

Personally, I do not give a goddamn if this information comes out now. It is too damned late. The only information that counts is the information that comes out at the time of decision, so it can be acted upon. They had that information, they suppressed it, and any attempt by them to come up with it now, or to be shamed by FOX News into disclosing it is simply a case of CYA. The only possible cure is getting rid of Rhoades. Of course I have not control over that decision, but I can urge others to pay them no mind until they do.

OK. Yes, the tumor must be removed because it grows much too quickly. But certainly there are Main Street people with no internet or time or interest to seek out access to it … just now picking up on the fact that there has been a coverup. They remember the names Susan Rice, Youtube, and anti-Muslim. How many are just finding reason to know there has been the coverup, I could not say. But there must be quite a few like my friend Shirley who has wanted to believe the things I’ve been telling her. And now she does. She will vote with that in mind tomorrow and in 2014.

So I hold out hope that CBS’s CYA campaign will backfire, or at least neutralize itself. Sadly as you’ve stated though, what’s done is done. I cannot sugar coat that.